It's too bad you see it necessary to frame the discussion of Confession=Communion within the tension between "Traditionalist" and "Modernist" Orthodoxies.

You got me wondering why in the world those of us who are super-traditionalists are accused of being modernists? It seems to me that the issue is between two camps:

Ladies and gents, on this corner are the Super Orthodox--those who are convinced that everything that they have received and currently believe/do must not change because the latest is the bestest (just like Muslims believe: Mohamed was last so he trumps all others before him).

And, on this corner are The Back to the Future gang--those who try to preserve and promulgate the best of Orthodoxy, even if this means a change or two BUT ALWAYS back to a practice of the past.

I don't know about you but I think that the traditionalism of the first group is a shallow brook, while the traditionalism of the second group is a river that runs deep, clear and true.

It's too bad you see it necessary to frame the discussion of Confession=Communion within the tension between "Traditionalist" and "Modernist" Orthodoxies.

You got me wondering why in the world those of us who are super-traditionalists are accused of being modernists?

I'm wondering how many "super-traditionalists" would espouse the branch theory?

Quote

It seems to me that the issue is between two camps:

Ladies and gents, on this corner are the Super Orthodox--those who are convinced that everything that they have received and currently believe/do must not change because the latest is the bestest (just like Muslims believe: Mohamed was last so he trumps all others before him).

And, on this corner are The Back to the Future gang--those who try to preserve and promulgate the best of Orthodoxy, even if this means a change or two BUT ALWAYS back to a practice of the past.

I don't know about you but I think that the traditionalism of the first group is a shallow brook, while the traditionalism of the second group is a river that runs deep, clear and true.

I characterize it a little differently. There is the path of humility and obedience, which lovingly accepts the livingTradition that comes down to us from our pastors, from one person to another; then there is the path of "I know better," which feels entitled to supplant, modify, or ignore the living tradition in favour of what one has read in a book somewhere, or even one's personal reasonings. The notion that I have the right to change something delivered to me, and replace with a supposedly older practice that's more to my liking- that is the shallow well of pride.

It's too bad you see it necessary to frame the discussion of Confession=Communion within the tension between "Traditionalist" and "Modernist" Orthodoxies.

You got me wondering why in the world those of us who are super-traditionalists are accused of being modernists?

I'm wondering how many "super-traditionalists" would espouse the branch theory?

Quote

It seems to me that the issue is between two camps:

Ladies and gents, on this corner are the Super Orthodox--those who are convinced that everything that they have received and currently believe/do must not change because the latest is the bestest (just like Muslims believe: Mohamed was last so he trumps all others before him).

And, on this corner are The Back to the Future gang--those who try to preserve and promulgate the best of Orthodoxy, even if this means a change or two BUT ALWAYS back to a practice of the past.

I don't know about you but I think that the traditionalism of the first group is a shallow brook, while the traditionalism of the second group is a river that runs deep, clear and true.

I characterize it a little differently. There is the path of humility and obedience, which lovingly accepts the livingTradition that comes down to us from our pastors, from one person to another; then there is the path of "I know better," which feels entitled to supplant, modify, or ignore the living tradition in favour of what one has read in a book somewhere, or even one's personal reasonings. The notion that I have the right to change something delivered to me, and replace with a supposedly older practice that's more to my liking- that is the shallow well of pride.

You re correct, of course, if the choice was between the two examples that you provided. There is a third way, one where humility, obedience and respect for the faith as delivered is combined with a deliberate, diligent and balanced inquiry. Put it bluntly, one can be happy as a clam to stay in one's shell just because that is where he is and he refuses to use his God-given brain or has an exalted view of what humility is. I am happy for such a person because he is happy. But, I can not accept his approach. To elevate this "living Tradition" that you are talking about in such categorical terms is to make a cult out of our faith. What in effect you believe in is not the substance of our faith but the superficial carapace that you seem to treat with such veneration. I would submit that this is false modesty, a lazy and lackadaisical approach, and an abdication of your responsibilities.

Actually Priests at least in Rocor will instruct you not to receive communion that week or until the matter is cleared up. So you really cant mess up all you want.

Second Chance wrote:

Yes and this would happen at each jurisdiction. That was not what I was trying to say. First, I was being sarcastic. Second, I was not talking at that point about priests but about any one of us who can "game" this thing without the priest ever knowing about it. Unless, one of the charisma that he receives at his ordination is to know everything that his parishioners think and do.

And exactly how would this happen in the jurisdictions where confession is only required once per year, or even once per quarter? Talk about a license to do whatever you want to do! No chance for the Priest to guide you. No chance to impose a penance. As to the person "gaming" the system, they are not fooling God. If they want to play with fire, they will get burnt. I don't believe that there is a sin upon a Priest who communes someone to that person's own destruction when they have lied to the Priest, or "gamed" the system. I worry about the priest who communes someone to their own destruction because he never properly instructed them, or did not enforce Church discipline.

If I wanted to "game the system" I could too even though I am expected to confess weekly ( or in my case "Weakly"

Not only does my Priest know me well after so much contact, but I know him too and could easily tell him what I already know he wants to hear.

At some point, it's on your own shoulders to decide if you want to submit yourself honestly or not.

I actually preferred the times when I was in the OCA and only was asked to confess every month or so. The confessions were more far ranging and covered stuff bigger than giving someone the finger on the Highway.. But that's just me.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

It's likely that in a Rocor Parish they will do the full All Night Vigil which is both Vespers and Matins. It should run about 2.5 hours.

Disclaimer: I know exactly what you mean; however, I've been through "All-Night Vigil," and let me tell you, they aren't 2.5 hours, unless "All-Night" is "Northern Alaska in the summer."

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Yes, well...hats off to your parish for keeping laypeople in Church from dusk till dawn every week. Vigil for the rest of us means 2.5 to 3 hours on Saturday evening.

My comment had nothing to do with parish life; at theological school we did 2 All-Night vigils per year, and we meant it (9pm to 9 or 10 am). I'm used to hearing the slavic-style vigil (Vespers & Matins) referred to as just "vigil," so your post had caught my eye. I wasn't being critical, just whimsical.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I remember going once to a proper all night vigil (Ss. Peter & Paul) at a monastery in Romania. I really lasted all night, although I sneaked out some time around 1 am and came back for the Liturgy early in the morning.An all night vigil proper also includes the compline, the Mid-night office, an akathist perhaps etc.

I will say that some of the prayers in the Jordanville are very pretty....

I'm sure. I think that with Elizabethan English, as used in the Jordanville, you either hate it or you love it. I think it's beautiful, but it's hard to understand for some.

The Elizabethan English is my favorite. BTW, most OCA parishes and all English ROCOR parishes will use some form of Elizabethan English. This ranges from calling the Lord "THOU" to using endings and calling everyone "thou" in the singular.

hmm back to the original question...Perhaps the ROCOR Priests open and shut the Royal Doors and curtain (if not an archmandrite or mitred archpriest is serving) far more than the OCA priests during services.. especially Divine Liturgy.The ROCOR parishes I have seen do not recite the prayers before the Singing Shouting and Saying and then recite the prayers before "Take Eat" And "Drink..." They don't have audible Epeclesis.In the Rocor experience when the priest says bow your heads unto the Lord, the choir sings "To Thee O Lord" long enough that the silent prayer can be said and then the priest exaults the end of it audibly.In the OCA experience it is hit or miss around my area, most are reciting more silent prayers audibly and recite the Epeclesis aubily. Around here the OCA doesn't do Vigil on Saturday night, none of them and there are a bunch. Most of the differences would probably rest in the liturgics, the best thing to do would be to see a service book for say, Ressurection Matins from the ROCOR and one from the OCA.

hmm back to the original question...Perhaps the ROCOR Priests open and shut the Royal Doors and curtain (if not an archmandrite or mitred archpriest is serving) far more than the OCA priests during services.. especially Divine Liturgy.The ROCOR parishes I have seen do not recite the prayers before the Singing Shouting and Saying and then recite the prayers before "Take Eat" And "Drink..." They don't have audible Epeclesis.In the Rocor experience when the priest says bow your heads unto the Lord, the choir sings "To Thee O Lord" long enough that the silent prayer can be said and then the priest exaults the end of it audibly.In the OCA experience it is hit or miss around my area, most are reciting more silent prayers audibly and recite the Epeclesis aubily. Around here the OCA doesn't do Vigil on Saturday night, none of them and there are a bunch. Most of the differences would probably rest in the liturgics, the best thing to do would be to see a service book for say, Ressurection Matins from the ROCOR and one from the OCA.

When DO they do it?

I notice a fair amount of variation in OCA parishes when it comes to the Kathismata and the readings. In some parishes it's very plain ("strophic" is the musical term for that kind of singing); but in others it is much more melismatic. I'm not enough of an expert to know the reason.

I remember going once to a proper all night vigil (Ss. Peter & Paul) at a monastery in Romania. I really lasted all night, although I sneaked out some time around 1 am and came back for the Liturgy early in the morning.

I've heard of monks doing the same thing, too, especially in places where the Katholikon barely holds all of the brotherhood; half would be there early in the vigil then leave to rest, half would come in the middle of the vigil, and then everyone would squeeze in for the Liturgy.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I remember going once to a proper all night vigil (Ss. Peter & Paul) at a monastery in Romania. I really lasted all night, although I sneaked out some time around 1 am and came back for the Liturgy early in the morning.

I've heard of monks doing the same thing, too, especially in places where the Katholikon barely holds all of the brotherhood; half would be there early in the vigil then leave to rest, half would come in the middle of the vigil, and then everyone would squeeze in for the Liturgy.

I saw that some people on this thread implied that they like the "one confession = one communion" rule.

That's fine, do what your priest says and all that, but perhaps caution should be exercised here. This rule, I think, tends to reduce confession to a "magic pass" that makes us "worthy" of communion. This is an issue in many churches, especially those of a predominantly ethnic composition (whether Russian or Arab); I think that a healthier approach would be to certainly confess on a regular basis as needed, but not to necessarily make confession a "ticket" we must purchase before going to communion each Sunday.

Just my 2 cents, take it for what you will.

In Christ,

Dn. Michael

This is right. I do believe that frequent confession is good, because it allows you to cleanse your conscience, but communion should also be encouraged, because it is "provisions on the journey to life eternal".

I saw that some people on this thread implied that they like the "one confession = one communion" rule.

That's fine, do what your priest says and all that, but perhaps caution should be exercised here. This rule, I think, tends to reduce confession to a "magic pass" that makes us "worthy" of communion. This is an issue in many churches, especially those of a predominantly ethnic composition (whether Russian or Arab); I think that a healthier approach would be to certainly confess on a regular basis as needed, but not to necessarily make confession a "ticket" we must purchase before going to communion each Sunday.Dn. Michael

There is no "magic pass", Father Michael. I would think that the "magic pass' is given to those in the Churches who may freely approach communion without confession. That is the real "magic pass."

We have seen the results in modern Orthodoxy of no link between confession and communion - the virtual disappearance of the use of the Mystery of Confession in some Orthodox Churches. (The same has happened in the Roman Catholic Church after Vatican II but the disappearance of confession there has several factors.)

For example, the Orthodox Church of Antioch uses our Russian parish church since they have none of their own at the moment. I was quite shocked when their priest told me that he has not heard a Confession - EVER! He has been a priest 6 years. I asked him how this could come about because a large proportion of his people are rather recent immigrants from Lebanon and Egypt and surely they are formed in the tradition of their home countries. He replied that they are not familiar with confession and actually see it as a Roman Catholic thing.

So on the basis of "by their fruits ye shall know them" I postulate that the practice of the Slav Churches is preferable. IN the Churches which maintain the link between Confession and Communion, Confession is a regular Sacrament and it is also used outside of the Communion link too - when a person believes he needs to come and confess some serious sin.

I believe it also promotes a good spiritual life and promotes the ascetic struggle against engrained sins because the penitent and the pattern of his spiritual strengths and weaknesses become known to his confessor who is better able to guide him and help him.

I would not want to argue with people about this. I am simply judging by the empirical evidence I have witnessed in 30 years as a priest in the Slav Churches, Serbian and Russian.

It has always been my understanding that Mediterranean Orthodox (Greeks and Arabs) Do not confess as frequently as do the Slav's and Russians?

« Last Edit: April 21, 2011, 05:42:16 PM by Robb »

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

It has always been my understanding that Mediterranean Orthodox (Greeks and Arabs) Do not confess as frequently as do the Slav's and Russians?

Fwiw, my Antiochian priest recommends that we confess at least 4 times a year (more often when necessary)...

My spiritual advisor recommends eight times a year at an absolute minimum. More frequently is better, but not so we get to the point of being over-scrupulous--what the Roman Catholic Archbishop Fulton Sheen called "being flogged with popcorn."

It has always been my understanding that Mediterranean Orthodox (Greeks and Arabs) Do not confess as frequently as do the Slav's and Russians?[/quote]Robb, the Greeks may confess less often because there are not as many priests who can confess. The bishop literally lays hands on a priest to make him a spiritual father. Only those who are set apart as spiritual fathers may hear confessions.

It's likely that in a Rocor Parish they will do the full All Night Vigil which is both Vespers and Matins. It should run about 2.5 hours. Ive learned that I need that much time to get settled and throw off the dregs of the work week. The OCA most times just does Vespers, but not always.

Rocor will also ask you to go to confession each week in order to receive communion.

And often, after all that, the Liturgy will come to an end and you are ready for some coffee just when the Priest announces they will be doing a Moleban for about another 25 minutes.. Wear comfy shoes.

I know what you mean...I do so miss those Lenten pre-sanctified liturgies. it was so wonderful to go to Church every Wednesday and shake of all of the stresses of school and my parents' marriage falling apart and just pray. I wish we in the OCA had more services, but when Father does that, not many people come and it's just him and his wife in the choir.

My OCA parish does the Presanctified Liturgy twice a week throughout Lent , starting in the second week.

I remember going once to a proper all night vigil (Ss. Peter & Paul) at a monastery in Romania. I really lasted all night, although I sneaked out some time around 1 am and came back for the Liturgy early in the morning.An all night vigil proper also includes the compline, the Mid-night office, an akathist perhaps etc.

Possibly also the complete kathismata, as well as the long form for Lord I cry, as well as the canons with odes, and yes, several canons with an akathist for Compline. I can't come up with a version of the vigil that lasts literally 12 hours, but a five- or six-hour version of Vespers, Compline, Midnight, and Matins is pretty easy to compile. I believe the Old Believers use these long forms.

It has always been my understanding that Mediterranean Orthodox (Greeks and Arabs) Do not confess as frequently as do the Slav's and Russians?

That is because all Russian and Slavic priests automatically receive permission to do confessions, but the Mediterranean Orthdodox still have bishops appointing spiritual fathers. Therefore, no one but a spiritual father is allowed to do confessions. Because not all priests are spiritual fathers, confession is less frequent.

It has always been my understanding that Mediterranean Orthodox (Greeks and Arabs) Do not confess as frequently as do the Slav's and Russians?

That is because all Russian and Slavic priests automatically receive permission to do confessions, but the Mediterranean Orthdodox still have bishops appointing spiritual fathers. Therefore, no one but a spiritual father is allowed to do confessions. Because not all priests are spiritual fathers, confession is less frequent.

And not all spiritual fathers are priests. Some of the greatest elders declined priestly ordination. Others who had been ordained surrendered their pectoral crosses and returned to the status of monk.